Posted on 03/29/2011 5:00:38 PM PDT by stainlessbanner
Businesses and individuals whose transactions are all conducted in U.S. dollars simply try to earn revenue and spend less than they earn. They don’t have gains/losses from currency exchange rates. So a falling U.S. dollar does not produce currency gains/losses for them. They borrow from banks and they deposit money into banks. That’s the genius of having each sovereign nation have it’s own currency. The relative value between currencies does not crush the poorer country with the lower valued currency in transactions inside it’s borders. As long as they can make their own food, clothing and shelter, they can live relatively comfortably even if their currency is dried kidney beans.
If I have a bank loan, I pay it back, the bank charges according to the loan and nothing more.
If I deposit money in my bank account, the bank does not steal one penny, it is all accounted for.
I can shop for interest rates on loans and deposits. I can avoid debt altogether, I don’t have to borrow if I don’t want to.
So... the bank in terms of my operations is not keeping me from succeeding. If I’m crying because I can’t get a loan, what I’m really saying is that I have cash flow problems and I’m trying to borrow my way out of them. Over time, if I had any brains, I’d build up a buffer of cash or near-cash items (perhaps gold these days ? duh ?) to enable me to handle recurring cash flow issues. Then I don’t give a rat’s patooty about whether the bank will loan me money. The banker used to be part of the entrepreneur’s “A-team”, but has not been for a long time. If I can’t build up a buffer of cash, that means I should be in a different business.
Increasing the money supply too fast will cause inflation. High inflation hurts businesses and individuals. But the Fed government - the Treasury - would be increasing the money supply if the Fed was abolished. Same difference. The money supply must be adjusted to accomodate the transactions made in the economy. If we tried to operate the U.S. economy today with the amount of money as of 1/1/1790, we’d have a little difficulty. It has to be changed as the national wealth changes, since people and businesses all keep a percentage of their net worth in cash and we get more people over time and more value.
We don’t need to see the detail of the books of the Fed to know that it’s working with the Treasury to increase the money supply too fast at this point; there is Fed data publicly available, it’s just not fully detailed.
The Fed is owned banks - that’s exactly who should own it. The banks which own shares do not want to see the Fed go belly up. Fantastic, as long as taxpayers aren’t asked to bail out the Fed, which so far they have not been.
If the Fed makes extra “profit”, that’s a good thing. It actually returns it to the Treasury.
Bailout money is another story. TARP loans went from taxpayer to Treasury to bank. Even though banks were bailed out, that is not only a Fed issue, it’s a Congress and President issue. It’s only a Fed issue to the extent they support bailouts.
Are there any Fed tinhatters who realize that banks need to have standards and procedures (i.e., software, data files, etc.) for clearing checks ? Also, that the idea that the “banking system” which makes all that possible should be owned collectively by banks ? Also, that it would be a bad idea to have politicians run the banking system, and they would if this bank-owned Fed was not doing it, because someone has to run the banking system ?
“This all started because Mark Levin said Obama was correct in going to UN instead of Congress.”
You definitely weren’t listening.
I will explain it to you.
His point was against the War Powers Act. His point was there is a delicate balance in the CONSTITUTION (that you profess to understand) and that the CONSTITUTION gives the President certain powers **AS COMMANDER IN CHIEF** in the CONSTITUTION.
In the same breath almost, he explained that Congress has certain powers in the Constitution, and that because it has the power to defund any action the President takes, Congress may ultimately undermine the President under the Constitution as written without the need for the War Powers Act. Therefore the War Powers Act is unconstitutional, because it essentially disturbs the already existing balance between the President and Congress, and in the process (and here is the finer point that he was trying to make) **gives the members of Congress political cover in that they are no longer required to take a stand on a specific conflict by exercising their constitutionally described check against executive power of defunding, but can instead require the executive to consult in all conflicts**.
So to boil all this down to say he’s in favor of invading Lybia is a simplistic interpretation of a very well-reasoned point, and although you claim to be in favor of the constitution, you are essentially shooting both the constitution and yourself in the foot by so asserting that Mark Levin was making a certain point in favor of Obama when he was making an entirely different point for anyone with the ability to understand it.
/concur
That’s nice but there isn’t any Constitutional support for it... just Mark Levin’s opinion.
There's nothing controversial about that. Nobody has ever denied that Congress could defund any war, any time. The question is this: does the President have to go to Congress to wage aggressive not defensive war. Levin says it doesn't. You seem (?) to be arguing that Levin wants to "defund" the war. If so, could you provide evidence? If Levin does not support defunding, he is clearly (under his own doctrine!) a supporter of this war.
So Levin’s argument descends from “everybody does it” to “you’re an a-hole”? Not surprising.
It may be simplistic, but there are facts behind the viewpoint that the banks are boogeymen. Certainly more than in your response.
Ditto’s that. I agree too.
Not to mention:
9/11 TRUTHER
FOR OPEN BORDERS
FOR DRUG LEGALIZATION
BELIEVES IN USING QUAINT ARCHAIC ‘LETTERS OF MARQUE’ AGAINST TERRORISTS INSTEAD OF A BULLET IN THE HEAD.
Levin is simply wrong here...none of the Founders...not even Hamilton...would have agreed that the President can initiate a war without Congressional approval. That is not even really debatable. I'm not sure why Mark is trying to defend that position
1) ALL Lefties
2) Willie Green
3) RINO’s
4) CINO’s
5) JINO’s
Willie Green? A.K.A. "The Light at the End of the Tunnel?*"
*The train coming the other way
;^)
Yep, we already knew that.
Have listned to Levin at all? He does not endorse this at all. And has said so.
I thought Bear and Lehman collapsed because their bonds (many mortgage related) fell in value?
and they got the government to give them a full payout.
The banks did not get a full payout from the Lehman collapse.
The banks were behind the LTCM bailout, which bailed out said banks.
OMG! A private solution. The horror!
bttt
Me to, they are wackos from the far nutty side.
Reagan went to war on that tiny island with out congress.
He didn’t do anything wrong.
Boy, ain’t that the truth!
Lie
FOR OPEN BORDERS
Lie
FOR DRUG LEGALIZATION
Lie
BELIEVES IN USING QUAINT ARCHAIC ‘LETTERS OF MARQUE’ AGAINST TERRORISTS INSTEAD OF A BULLET IN THE HEAD.
An idiotic, contradicting statement
I think the founders would have allowed the president to initiate defensive war in case of an immediate attack and then go to them later. Agressive war, as in Iraq and Libya, would first require authorization.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.